Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
No real surprises here, but you'd think McLennan might have learnt not to be quite so flippant about a budget overrun.
He thinks he's bulletproof.
No real surprises here, but you'd think McLennan might have learnt not to be quite so flippant about a budget overrun.
Why do you say that out of interest? If I'm honest this was the one thing Eddie did I really liked. Obviously it didn't work out because of injuries and we only saw it for two games. But there was no way of knowing that at the time. And the burning through of captains in the Rugby championship was very dumb.The choice of Skelton as captain was a poor one.
Why do you say that out of interest? If I'm honest this was the one thing Eddie did I really liked. Obviously it didn't work out because of injuries and we only saw it for two games. But there was no way of knowing that at the time. And the burning through of captains in the Rugby championship was very dumb.
But I thought Skelton 1) was by far and away our best player who was leading through his actions. I also found him very impressive when I did hear him speak 2) Signalled a clean break from the past, which I did think was necessary. Putting thoughts around Hooper and whether he should have gone aside, I was never particularly struck by him as a captain. Pretty factually he was very unsuccessful and the Wallabies was a losing environment for a lot of his time as skipper.
Would not mind if he remains captain moving forward. I certainly hope he keeps getting picked.
Look, very fair reasoning why he may not be a suitable captain (if that's what your suggesting). But you pick him as often and as possible as you can, because he's your best player and one of the only world-class operators we have. Don't want to get dragged into Giteau Law discussion because its another can of worms...but a Wallabies team with, say Frost-Rodda/Phillip is objectively weaker than Frost-Skelton even if the others train a few extra weeks with the team. Maybe you play him off the bench in the firs game of a series to help him get up to speed. But if we want to be a good test match team, we need him as much as possible.I'm not doubting what Skelton can offer, BUT: He would be unavailable for in-season Wallaby squads, unavailable for lead-up tests outside the international window, and generally unavailable in the training and leadership environment outside of parachuting in at the last moment in the test window. Also pack selections and structure would very likely be entirely different in Skelton's absence compared to when he is available.
You'll have to explain to me how that works.
The private equity mindset - go hard or go homeHe thinks he's bulletproof.
The guy is an advertising executive- he’s not close to private equity. People (and this isn’t personal) should really go and have a look at his background.The private equity mindset - go hard or go home
he says in hindsight, he'd fire rennie and hire eddie all over again.The guy is an advertising executive- he’s not close to private equity. People (and this isn’t personal) should really go and have a look at his background.
not always right but never ever in doubt.
We need a sound and responsible captain and I think Ben Mowan was the last captain who took control of the team. I too thought Skelton did a decent job and his speech during the Welsh? game 'do your effing job!' was a sign that he has a vision of what needs to be done.Look, very fair reasoning why he may not be a suitable captain (if that's what your suggesting). But you pick him as often and as possible as you can, because he's your best player and one of the only world-class operators we have. Don't want to get dragged into Giteau Law discussion because its another can of worms...but a Wallabies team with, say Frost-Rodda/Phillip is objectively weaker than Frost-Skelton even if the others train a few extra weeks with the team. Maybe you play him off the bench in the firs game of a series to help him get up to speed. But if we want to be a good test match team, we need him as much as possible.
Board members (and CEOs) can never publicly admit mistakes simply due to self-preservation.he says in hindsight, he'd fire rennie and hire eddie all over again.
what a moronic comment.
And if it goes tits up there is always a mug to take the can.Hammer strikes me as the type I've met in business many times: not always right but never ever in doubt.
There are d'heads everywhere and I am sure the ABC/SMH has more than it's fair share.The guy has been under the wing of News Corporation...
There are d'heads everywhere and I am sure the ABC/SMH has more than it's fair share.
I’m not taking it personally. He started out in advertising. Since then he’s been buying and merging companies. Then at Magellen he’s been part of a ‘dynamic’ investment cultureThe guy is an advertising executive- he’s not close to private equity. People (and this isn’t personal) should really go and have a look at his background.